Reputation
221
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
1 9
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~2k people reached

Aug
27
revised Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
added 15 characters in body
Aug
27
comment Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
@SteveJessop Poor choice of words I suppose. I added that disclaimer to prevent single-line answers amounting to "write code that doesn't need comments" without further clarification. Another summary of my question could be "Should I comment code that doesn't need comments for up-to-date developers?". I'll reword that phrase (it was referring to the linked answer's conclusion: "Explaining yourself is good, not needing to do so is better.").
Aug
27
awarded  Yearling
Aug
27
comment Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
Excellent points and something I'll have to consider. Not sure why this gained a downvote, +1.
Aug
26
awarded  Popular Question
Aug
26
awarded  Nice Question
Aug
26
comment Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
@gnat Tried to clarify the differences.
Aug
26
revised Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
explained differences with suggested dupe
Aug
26
revised Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
added 183 characters in body
Aug
26
comment Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
I see that I should have been clearer in my original post, this is indeed what I'm doing, for example "This logic uses the new GROUP BY logic from ABAP release 7.40 SP08".
Aug
26
revised Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
added 221 characters in body
Aug
26
comment Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
Dont' worry @cxw , I expected to get that reaction and I understand where you're coming from. I've updated my question to explain the benefits of using the new syntax as they're generally quite significant.
Aug
26
revised Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
added 1064 characters in body
Aug
26
awarded  Student
Aug
26
asked Explaining new or uncommon syntax in comments
Jul
15
comment What's wrong with comments that explain complex code?
I feel like your final paragraph shouldn't be restricted to personal projects as it can make naturally complex code much more readable. As an example, even simple regex statements can confuse developers that don't normally work with them. Sure, any developer worth his salt should know basic regex or at least be able to decipher it but simply describing the match can avoid a lot of documentation reading.
Jul
13
comment Is the question “What is the using statement” a bad question to ask an interviewee?
@JaredSmith Given that the OP mentions clarifying the question (statement != directive), I assume the OP is the one asking the question and is either sitting in on the main interview or doing a separate skills assessment.
Jun
17
comment Best practice boolean assignment
+1 for infantile code. I've been looking at such code for years, I just lacked the right word to identify it.
May
31
comment Is the use of one-letter variables encouraged?
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Not in all programs no, but I don't see anything wrong with Jorg's suggestions. As Killian put it: "Anything longer cannot possibly make the semantics any more obvious, but takes much longer to read." But this is probably largely a matter of personal preference and style.
May
29
comment Is the use of one-letter variables encouraged?
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft I prefer to think of it as efficient programming. Jorg could probably expand on when single letters are appropriate, not just where, but to be honest I imagine most programmers draw the line differently. As for the loop indices, I could argue that any code where the indices don't need names with semantic value is simple enough to justify multi-level nesting over unnecessary extraction. They could also be used in separate loops to avoid possible scoping issues that Nelson brings up‌​.